The courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another performed within its own territory.
After a revolutionary government successfully seized power in Venezuela and gained recognition by the United States, a plaintiff sued a military commander for acts committed during the conflict. The court considers whether the commander's actions, performed while representing the revolutionary authority, are subject to adjudication in a foreign court. Applying the principle of sovereign immunity, the court holds that every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state. Because the defendant acted as a military commander for a government that was subsequently recognized, his acts are deemed acts of a sovereign nation and are immune from the judgment of foreign courts.
At page 252 Sovereign immunity from foreign judicial review of governmental acts28 citing casesEvery sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done, within its own territory
- Rodolfo Enrique Jimenez v. Luisa Palacios, No. C.A. No. 2019-0490-KSJM (Del. Ch. Aug. 12, 2019).published(Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves.)
- Rodolfo Enrique Jimenez v. Luisa Palacios, No. C.A. No. 2019-0490-KSJM (Del. Ch. Aug. 2, 2019).published(Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves.)
- Boniface v. Viliena, 145 F.4th 98 (1st Cir. 2025).publishedHe goes so far as to argue that our exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction would in fact violate "the law of nations" (i.e., customary international law) and "traditional notions of comity" that prevent one country from "sit[ting] in ju…
- Rosemary D'augusta v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 117 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2024).publishedIt provides that a federal court “will not adjudicate a politically sensitive dispute which would require the court to judge the legality of the sovereign act of a foreign state.” Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, (IAM) v. O…
- Emden v. Museum of Fine Arts, 103 F.4th 308 (5th Cir. 2024).publishedAct of State Doctrine A judicial creation rooted in separation-of-powers principles, the act of state doctrine bars American courts from “sit[ting] in judgment on the acts of the government of another [state], done within its own territory…
- Dvoinik v. Philipp, No. 8:22-cv-01127 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2023). “Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory.” Id. (quoting Under…
- Emden v. The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, No. 4:21-cv-03348 (S.D. Tex. May 2, 2022).“the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory”
- Caballero v. Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias De Colombia, No. 3:20-cv-01939 (D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2022).“the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory”
- Free & Sovereign State of Chihuahua v. Duarte-Jaquez, No. 3:20-cv-00086 (W.D. Tex. July 14, 2020).(refusing to adjudicate an action against Hernandez, a revolutionary Venezuelan military commander whose government had been later recognized by the United States, brought by an American citizen who claimed that he had b…)
- Royal Wulff Ventures LLC v. Primero Mining Corp., 938 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2019).published“Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory”
Show 17 more citing cases
- Sea Breeze Salt, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 899 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2018).published Court, 130 F.3d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252 (1897)).
- Pueblo v. Casellas Torres, 197 P.R. Dec. 1003 (2017).publishedUnderhill v. Hernandez, 168 US 250, 252 (1897) {“Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another don…
- New Peking Buffet v. Lin, No. B258842 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2016).unpublishedBank (9th Cir. 2005) 397 F.3d 768 , 772, quoting Underhill v. Hernandez (1897) 168 U.S. 250, 252 [ 18 S.Ct. 83 ].) Under the act of state doctrine, we are to presume other countries’ official acts are valid.
- Repub. of Iraq Ex Rel. Citizens of the Repub. of Iraq v. ABB AG, 768 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2014).published “the courts of one country will not sit in 14 judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its 15 own territory”
- Marei Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art At, 754 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2014).published“Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory”
- Prov Govt Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., No. 07-16306 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2009).published(recounting history of the doctrine)
- In re the Adoption of Doe, 58 A.D.3d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008).publishedThe act of state doctrine, now more than a century old, was first enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Underhill v Hernandez ( 168 US 250, 252 [1897]): “Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign…
- Yahoo Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, No. 01-17424 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2006).publishedUnderhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252 (1897).
- Repub. of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004).published Under that doctrine, the courts of one state will not question the validity of public acts (acts jure imperii ) performed by other sovereigns within their own borders, even when such courts have jurisdiction over a controversy in which one…
- Doe v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2002).published“the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory”
- People v. Almonte, 190 Misc. 2d 783 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002).published(Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done, within its own territory)
- Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Repub. of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682 (1976).published “acts done within their own States, in the exercise of governmental authority”
- First Nat'l City Bank v. Banco Nacional De Cuba, 406 U.S. 759 (1972).published The history and the legal basis of the act of state doctrine are treated comprehensively in the Court’s opinion in Sabbatino, supra. The Court there cited Chief Justice Fuller’s “classic American statement” of the doctrine, found in Underh…
- Appel v. Hayut, No. 1:20-cv-06265, 2021 WL 2689059 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2021).(recognizing “[t]he immunity of individuals from suits brought in foreign tribunals for acts done within their own states, in the exercise of governmental authority . . . as civil officers)
- Newman v. Jewish Agency for Israel, No. 18-244-cv (L) (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2019).published(recognizing ʺ[t]he immunity of individuals from suits brought in foreign tribunals for acts done within their own states, in the exercise of governmental authority . . . as civil officersʺ)
- Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010).published See Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250, 252, 254 (1897).
- Gerardo Dennis Patrickson Rodolfo Bermudez Arias Benigno Torres Hernandez Fernando Jimenez Arias Santos Leandros Herman Romero Aguilar Elias Espinoza Merelo Hooker Era Celestino Alirio Manuel Mendez Carlos Humberto Rivera, Individually & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Dole Food Co., Inc. Dole Fresh Fruit Co. Dole Fresh Fruit Int'l, Ltd. Pineapple Growers Associationof Hawaii Amvac Chem. Corp. Shell Oil Co. Dow Chem. Co. Occidental Chem. Corp., Individually & as Successor to Occidental Chem. Co. & Occidental Chem. Agric. Prods., Inc., Hooker Chem. & Plastics, Occidental Chem. Co. of Texas & Best Fertilizer Co. Stand. Fruit Co. Stand. Fruit & S.S. Co. Stand. Fruit Co. De Costa Rica, S.A. Stand. Fruit Co. De Honduras, S.A. Chiquita Brands, Inc. Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc., Individually United Brands Co., Inc., Suc Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc. Maritrop Trading Corp. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. Del Monte Fresh Produce Hawaii, Inc. Del Monte Fresh Produce Companyand Fresh Del Monte N v. V. Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd. Bromine Compounds Ltd., Third-Party-Defendants-Appellees. Gerardo Dennis Patrickson Rodolfo Bermudez Arias Benigno Torres Hernandez Fernando Jimenez Arias Santos Leandros Herman Romero Aguilar Elias Espinoza Merelo Hooker Era Celestino Alirio Manuel Mendez Carlos Humberto Rivera, Individually & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Dole Food Co., Inc. Dole Fresh Fruit Co. Dole Fresh Fruit Int'l, Ltd. Pineapple Growers Associationof Hawaii Amvac Chem. Corp. Shell Oil Co. Dow Chem. Co. Occidental Chem. Corp., Individually & as Successor to Occidental Chem. Co. & Occidental Chem. Agric. Prods., Inc., Hooker Chem. & Plastics, Occidental Chem. Co. of Texas & Best Fertilizer Co. Stand. Fruit Co. Stand. Fruit & S.S. Co. Stand. Fruit Co. De Costa Rica, S.A. Stand. Fruit Co. De Honduras, S.A. Chiquita Brands, Inc. Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc., Individually United Brands Co., Inc., Suc Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc. Maritrop Trading Corp. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. Del Monte Fresh Produce Hawaii, Inc. Del Monte Fresh Produce Companyand Fresh Del Monte N v. & Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd. Bromine Compounds Ltd., Third-Party-Defendants-Appellants, 251 F.3d 795 (3d Cir. 2001).publishedSee Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252 (1897).
At page 250 “every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory.”5 citing cases
- United States v. One Gulfstream G-V Jet Aircraft, 941 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013).published (Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its territory.)
- United States v. Portrait of Wally, 663 F. Supp. 2d 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).published (Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory.)
- Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp. Inc. v. Galadari, 610 F. Supp. 114 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).published (Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory.)
- Libra Bank Ltd. v. Banco Nacional De Costa Rica, S.A., 570 F. Supp. 870 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).published (Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory.)
- Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int'l B.V., 61 F. Supp. 3d 372 (2014).published (holding that "the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory)
At page 254 applying act of state doctrine because “the acts of the defendant [a Venezuelan military official] were the acts of the government of Venezuela3 citing cases
- Ledoux v. Subcom, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-02168 (D. Md. July 9, 2025).(applying act of state doctrine because “the acts of the defendant [a Venezuelan military official] were the acts of the government of Venezuela)
- Celestin v. Caribbean Air Mail, Inc., 30 F.4th 133 (2d Cir. 2022).publishedIn Underhill 16 v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 254 (1897), holding the defendant's 17 detention of the plaintiff to be tortious would have required denying 18 legal effect to “acts of a military commander representing the 19 authority of the…
- W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Env't Tectonics Corp., Int'l, 493 U.S. 400 (1990).publishedIn Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250, 254 (1897), holding the defendant’s detention of the plaintiff to be tortious would have required denying legal effect to “acts of a military commander representing the authority of the revolutiona…
18 S. Ct. at 83 cited at this page2 citing cases
- Hewitt v. Speyer, 250 F. 367 (2d Cir. 1918).publishedA. 405, decided in 1895, this court said that: “Considerations of comity, and of the highest expediency, require-that the conduct of states, whether in transactions with other states or with individ•uals, their own citizens or foreign citi…
- Am. Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 160 F. 184 (1908).publishedA. 405, affirmed 168 U. S. 250 , 18 Sup. Ct. 83, 42 L.
At page 251 holding that the alleged acts of the defendant military commander in detaining the plaintiff “were the acts of the government of Venezuela, and as such are not properly the subject of adjudication in the courts of another government” (quotation marks omitted)2 citing cases
- Elena Dvoinik v. Peter Philipp, No. 23-12240 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2024).unpublished(holding that the alleged acts of the defendant military commander in detaining the plaintiff “were the acts of the government of Venezuela, and as such are not properly the subject of adjudication in the courts of anoth…)
- John Doe I v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 69 F. Supp. 3d 75 (D.D.C. 2014).published(holding suit for damages arising from plaintiffs military detention not subject to adjudication because the acts were those of a military commander representing a foreign government and were, therefore, acts of the gove…)
18 S. Ct. at 84 cited at this page1 citing case
- In Re Refined Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 649 F. Supp. 2d 572 (S.D. Tex. 2009).published Reasoning that [ejvery sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory!, an…
42 L. Ed. at 579 cited at this page1 citing case
- Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corp., 410 F. Supp. 10 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).publishedId. 579. 34 .
At page 297 cited at this page1 citing case
- Wulfsohn v. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Repub., 202 A.D. 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922).publishedProc. § 3343, subd. 18; Civil Practice Act, § 7, subd. 7.) I assent to the proposition that every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment o…
Other citing cases
- Riggs Nat'l Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Comm'r, 163 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 1999).published
- Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A., 925 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019).published
- Eliahu v. Jewish Agency for Isr., 919 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 2019).published
- Nelson J. Mezerhane v. Republica Bolivariana De Venezuela, 785 F.3d 545 (11th Cir. 2015).published
- Al Shimari v. CACI Int'l, Inc., 679 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2012).published
- Beaty v. Repub. of Iraq, 480 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2007).published
- Doe I v. State of Israel, 400 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2005).published
v.
Hernandez
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory. Eedress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves.
Nor can the principle be confined to lawful or recognized governments, or to cases where redress can manifestly be had through public channels. The immunity of individuals from suits brought in foreign tribunals for acts done within their own States, in the exercise of governmental authority, whether as civil officers or as military commanders, must necessarily extend to the agents of governments ruling by paramount force as matter of fact. Where a civil war prevails, that is, where the people of a country are divided into two hostile parties, who take up arms and oppose one another by military[*253] force, generally speaking foreign nations do not assume to judge of the merits of the quarrel. If the party seeking to dislodge the existing government succeeds, a,nd the independence of the government it has set up is recognized, then the acts of such government from the commencement of its existence are regarded as those of an independent nation. If the political revolt fails of success, still if actual war has been waged, acts of legitimate warfare cannot be made the basis of individual liability. United States v. Rice, 4 Wheat. 246; Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603; Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1 ; Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176; Ford v. Surget, 97 U. S. 594; Bow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158; and other cases.
Revolutions or insurrections may inconvenience other nations, but by accommodation to the facts the application of settled rules is readily reached. And where the fact of the existence of war is in, issue in the instance of complaint of acts committed within foreign territory, it is not an absolute prerequisite that that fact should be made out by an acknowledgment of belligerency, as other official recognition of its existence may be sufficient proof thereof. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1.
In this case, the archives of the State Department show that civil war was flagrant in Yenezuela from the spring of 1892; that the revolution was successful; and that the revolutionary government was recognized by the United States as the government of the country, it being, to use the language of the Secretary of State in a communication to our minister to Yenezuela, “accepted by the people, in the possession of the power of the nation and fully established.”
That these were facts of winch the court is bound to take judicial notice, and for information as to which it may consult the Department of State, there can be no doubt. Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202; Mighell v. Sultan of Jahore, (1894) 1 Q. B. 149.
It is idle to argue that the proceedings of those who thus triumphed should be treated as the acts of banditti or mere mobs.
We entertain no doubt upon the evidence that Hernandez[*254] was carrying on militan1* operations in support of the revolutionary party. It may be that adherents of that side of the controversy in the particular locality where Hernandez was the leader of the movement entertained a preference for him as the future executive head of the nation, but that is beside the question. The acts complained of were the acts of a military commander representing the authority of the revolutionary party as a government, which afterwards succeeded and was recognized by the United States. We think the Circuit Court of Appeals was justified in concluding “ that the acts of the defendant were the acts of the government of Venezuela, and as such are not properly the subject of adjudication in the courts of another government.”
The decisions cited on plaintiff’s behalf are not in point. - Cases respecting arrests by military authority in the absence of the prevalence of war; or the validity of contracts between individuals entered into in aid of insurrection; or the right of revolutionary bodies to vex the commerce of the world on its common highway without incurring the penalties denounced on piracy; and the like, do not involve the questions presented here.
We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals, that “the evidence upon the trial indicated that the purpose of the defendant in his treatment of the plaintiff was to coerce the plaintiff to operate his waterworks and his repair works for the benefit of the community and the revolutionary forces,” and that “ it was not sufficient to have warranted a finding by the jury that the defendant was actuated by malice or any personal or private motive;'” and we concur in its disposition of the rulings below. The decree of the Circuit Court is
Affirmed.